Recommended Posts

Latest IAPT annual report (2017-2018) published this week. Shame to lost the Excel table of data, new way to display is harder to search. Chart below shows the 'alleged' figures for those with OCD finishing treatment. Call me sceptical that 48% reached some kind of recovery. But significantly 15% (3375 people) showed no change. That in itself bad, but poor IAPT experience will have put some of those people off seeking further treatment. As for 3% (608 people) showing deterioration, not all will be IAPT fault, some of those should not have started IAPT in first place which means we need better pathway interventions, some will naturally get worse of course. But I know from talking to people, some did get worse because of poor IAPT therapeutic intervention, and that is shameful and needs to change.

Share this post

Link to post

This is really interesting ashley and I'd also be interested to know what "reliable" means.

This is absolutely what happened to me. My experience with iapt was a total waste of time and has put me off every seeking therapy again - I'd rather take my chances with a book and this forum.

I think the problem may be that the therapists are taught to work to a certain model programme. But OCD sufferers have individual uniqueness and needs - for example despite plenty of CBT therapy from experienced (albeit private) therapists, only the last one - with a PHD in clinical psychology - truly grasped that I needed more than CBT to effect my own recovery (I remain good at the time of writing) - she started me in the right direction, and the forum members took it from there.

Share this post

Link to post

What's the difference between reliable recovery and just recovery? That seems the oddest thing to me.

1 hour ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

This is really interesting ashley and I'd also be interested to know what "reliable" means.

This is absolutely what happened to me. My experience with iapt was a total waste of time and has put me off every seeking therapy again - I'd rather take my chances with a book and this forum.

Good questions friends... this is what the IAPT report states:

Recovery

Recovery in IAPT is measured in terms of ‘caseness’ – a term which means a referral has severe enough symptoms of anxiety or depression to be regarded as a clinical case. A referral has moved to recovery if they were a clinical case at the start of their treatment (‘at caseness’) and not a clinical case at the end of their treatment, measured by scores from questionnaires tailored to their specific condition.

Reliable improvement and reliable recovery

In addition to recovery, there are two other measures of outcome in IAPT: reliable improvement and reliable recovery.

A referral has shown reliable improvement if there is a significant improvement in their condition following a course of treatment. This is measured by the difference between their first and last scores on questionnaires tailored to their specific condition.

A referral has reliably recovered if they meet the criteria for both the recovery and reliable improvement measures. That is, they have moved from being a clinical case at the start of treatment to not being a clinical case at the end of treatment, and there has also been a significant improvement in their condition.

Share this post

Link to post

I think the problem may be that the therapists are taught to work to a certain model programme. But OCD sufferers have individual uniqueness and needs - for example despite plenty of CBT therapy from experienced (albeit private) therapists, only the last one - with a PHD in clinical psychology - truly grasped that I needed more than CBT to effect my own recovery (I remain good at the time of writing) - she started me in the right direction, and the forum members took it from there.

I think a big issue was that I didn't know OCD was my problem at that time and the therapist was treating what I now know to be OCD worries as legitimate concerns. She gave me reassurance aplenty and lots of evidence-building etc. I now think she should have been able to spot OCD but she didn't because essentially she wasn't qualified to.

Recovery in IAPT is measured in terms of ‘caseness’ – a term which means a referral has severe enough symptoms of anxiety or depression to be regarded as a clinical case. A referral has moved to recovery if they were a clinical case at the start of their treatment (‘at caseness’) and not a clinical case at the end of their treatment, measured by scores from questionnaires tailored to their specific condition.

Reliable improvement and reliable recovery

In addition to recovery, there are two other measures of outcome in IAPT: reliable improvement and reliable recovery.

A referral has shown reliable improvement if there is a significant improvement in their condition following a course of treatment. This is measured by the difference between their first and last scores on questionnaires tailored to their specific condition.

A referral has reliably recovered if they meet the criteria for both the recovery and reliable improvement measures. That is, they have moved from being a clinical case at the start of treatment to not being a clinical case at the end of treatment, and there has also been a significant improvement in their condition.

Share this post

Link to post

Eh? Sounds strange. So those who just reach recovery haven't had a significant improvement in their condition? Does that mean they were less severe than those who meet reliable recovery to start with? That's the only condition I can think of for that to be the case. In other words the difference between their initial score and end score can't be classed as 'significant'.

I suppose that is more transparent than just classifying all those as people in recovery, but not that keen on the word reliable. Don't get why it isn't just significant recovery and significant improvement!